Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 19th 2009
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: Markdownadded illustrating diagram to [[transfinite composition]] I also renamed the resulting composite morphism into <latex> X \to Y </latex>. Hope I did this consistently.

   added illustrating diagram to transfinite composition

   I also renamed the resulting composite morphism into . Hope I did this consistently.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeNov 19th 2009
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: TextAnother instance of transfinite composition was related to me by Jim Stasheff; it's in Milnor's proof that fiber bundles have the homotopy lifting property. At some point I'll see if I can record it in the Lab.

   Another instance of transfinite composition was related to me by Jim Stasheff; it's in Milnor's proof that fiber bundles have the homotopy lifting property. At some point I'll see if I can record it in the Lab.
3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 19th 2009
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: Markdown<blockquote> Another instance of transfinite composition was related to me by Jim Stasheff; it's in Milnor's proof that fiber bundles have the homotopy lifting property. At some point I'll see if I can record it in the Lab. </blockquote> That would great. I am not actually aware of how that proof works.

   This comment is invalid XHTML+MathML+SVG; displaying source. <div> <blockquote> Another instance of transfinite composition was related to me by Jim Stasheff; it's in Milnor's proof that fiber bundles have the homotopy lifting property. At some point I'll see if I can record it in the Lab. </blockquote> <p>That would great. I am not actually aware of how that proof works.</p> </div>
4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeNov 19th 2009
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: TextActually, it may be (probably is) different from the transfinite composition described on that page. I'll have to jog my memory a bit.

   Actually, it may be (probably is) different from the transfinite composition described on that page. I'll have to jog my memory a bit.
5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeNov 20th 2009
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownI will now try to jot down some scattered memories of the conversation with Stasheff from ages ago at [[Milnor slide trick]].

   I will now try to jot down some scattered memories of the conversation with Stasheff from ages ago at Milnor slide trick.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 5th 2016
   • (edited Apr 5th 2016)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI have tried to make the entry _[[transfinite composition]]_ more readable: 1. I included a quick self-contained definition of ordinals and limit ordinals (for the case with LEM). For if any reader really needs to be reminded, then presently clicking on [[ordinal]] sends him or her off onto a long, long chase, until the definition is fully assembled. (Eventually all these entries on XY-orders could be streamlined for public consumption, but I won't do this right now.) 1. I changed the name of the transfinite composition diagram from $F$ to $X_\bullet$. That allowed to remove various clauses on how notation is to be matched and simply have the transfinite composite be labeled $X_0 \to X_\alpha$. 1. I reordered the two pieces of the definition. Now it first states what the diagram is, then it says how the transfinite composite itself is the given by the colimit. (Previously it was a highly nested sentence starting with "is the colimit" and only then beginning to say of which diagram subject to which conditions).

   I have tried to make the entry transfinite composition more readable:

   1. I included a quick self-contained definition of ordinals and limit ordinals (for the case with LEM). For if any reader really needs to be reminded, then presently clicking on ordinal sends him or her off onto a long, long chase, until the definition is fully assembled. (Eventually all these entries on XY-orders could be streamlined for public consumption, but I won’t do this right now.)

   2. I changed the name of the transfinite composition diagram from $F$ to $X_\bullet$. That allowed to remove various clauses on how notation is to be matched and simply have the transfinite composite be labeled $X_0 \to X_\alpha$.

   3. I reordered the two pieces of the definition. Now it first states what the diagram is, then it says how the transfinite composite itself is the given by the colimit. (Previously it was a highly nested sentence starting with “is the colimit” and only then beginning to say of which diagram subject to which conditions).

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorManuel Araújo
   • CommentTimeMar 9th 2024
   • (edited Mar 9th 2024)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Manuel Araújo
   Format: MarkdownItexHi! There is something which seems confusing to me: at the start of Definition 2.3 I was assuming the way one regards an ordinal $\alpha$ as a category is by having the set of objects be the underlying set and letting the order relation determine the morphisms. But then it seems a diagram indexed by $\alpha$ also assigns values to limit ordinals $\beta$ < $\alpha$, which are not elements in the underlying set. So it seems objects of $\alpha$ as a category are ordinals $\beta$ < $\alpha$ and the morphisms are determined by the order $\leq$ on ordinals <$\alpha$. Is that correct? EDIT: Sorry, I think I understand why these two things are the same, but I don't know how to delete my comment.

   Hi!

   There is something which seems confusing to me: at the start of Definition 2.3 I was assuming the way one regards an ordinal $\alpha$ as a category is by having the set of objects be the underlying set and letting the order relation determine the morphisms. But then it seems a diagram indexed by $\alpha$ also assigns values to limit ordinals $\beta$ < $\alpha$, which are not elements in the underlying set.

   So it seems objects of $\alpha$ as a category are ordinals $\beta$ < $\alpha$ and the morphisms are determined by the order $\leq$ on ordinals <$\alpha$. Is that correct?

   EDIT: Sorry, I think I understand why these two things are the same, but I don’t know how to delete my comment.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorHurkyl
   • CommentTimeMar 9th 2024
   • (edited Mar 9th 2024)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Hurkyl
   Format: MarkdownItexIt sounds like you are correct, with one correction. In ZFC, one typically _defines_ ordinals so that you actually have an equality $$ \alpha = \{ \beta \mid \beta\ \text{ is an ordinal satisfying }\ \beta \lt \alpha \} $$ So, the limit ordinals $\beta$ that satisfy $\beta \lt \alpha$ are, in fact, members of the set $\alpha$. If you're not using this construction, it is still common to use this same language, and implicitly adapt it to your situation. E.g. what you consider the "underlying set" should indeed have elements that correspond to all ordinals less than $\alpha$, including the limit ordinals.

   It sounds like you are correct, with one correction. In ZFC, one typically defines ordinals so that you actually have an equality

   $$\alpha = \{ \beta \mid \beta\ \text{ is an ordinal satisfying }\ \beta \lt \alpha \}$$

   So, the limit ordinals $\beta$ that satisfy $\beta \lt \alpha$ are, in fact, members of the set $\alpha$.

   If you’re not using this construction, it is still common to use this same language, and implicitly adapt it to your situation. E.g. what you consider the “underlying set” should indeed have elements that correspond to all ordinals less than $\alpha$, including the limit ordinals.

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorManuel Araújo
   • CommentTimeMar 9th 2024
   • PermaLink
   Author: Manuel Araújo
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks! And I guess one can get an isomorphism between $\alpha$ and {$\beta$| $\beta$ is an ordinal satisfying $\beta$ < $\alpha$} by mapping $x\in\alpha$ to the ordinal {y$\in\alpha$: y<x}, with inverse mapping $\beta$ to $\min${y$\in\alpha$: y>x for all $x\in\beta$}.

   Thanks! And I guess one can get an isomorphism between $\alpha$ and {$\beta$| $\beta$ is an ordinal satisfying $\beta$ < $\alpha$} by mapping $x\in\alpha$ to the ordinal {y$\in\alpha$: y<x}, with inverse mapping $\beta$ to $\min${y$\in\alpha$: y>x for all $x\in\beta$}.